Skip to main content
Glama

Orivox AI Website Builder

by org.orivox

replace_page

Rewrite an EXISTING page wholesale: pass the complete replacement document ( through ), same contract as create_new_site's document rules.

Use this for redesigns; use apply_dom_ops for small edits. It never creates a page (create_page does that) and never touches index.html (create_new_site owns the one-shot site document).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlYes
file_nameYes
project_guidYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the schema: it replaces entire page documents, respects a strict full-document contract, never creates a new page, and never modifies index.html. With no annotations present, this gives agents a meaningful safety and scope profile, though it doesn't cover result/error/response behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core behavior, and earns every sentence. It gives scope, the replacement contract, and an explicit alternative in fewer than 80 words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter replacement tool without annotations or an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: main behavior, usage boundaries, and sibling contrast are all present. Missing are explicit output/return behavior and the meanings of project_guid/file_name, but those are strongly inferable from the tool name and contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema offers only names/types for project_guid, file_name, and html. The description richly explains html ('complete replacement document from <!DOCTYPE html> through </html>'), and implicitly clarifies file_name as the target existing page, but it does not explicitly define project_guid or enumerates exact values/formats for file_name. Partial compensation, not full.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific action — 'Rewrite an EXISTING page wholesale' — with a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from create_page, create_new_site, and apply_dom_ops by stating what it does not do and where the boundary lies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for redesigns; use apply_dom_ops for small edits.' It also names create_pege and create_new_site as ownership boundaries, so an agent can choose between the sibling tools with confidence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Orivox AI Website Builder toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.

Completeness4/5

The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.

Resources